1. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant approved the hearing of the Plaintiff on August 1, 201, “B religious organization D’s association” as a delegated pastor of the religious organization E.I.D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s status 1) On April 21, 1993, the Plaintiff was a member of the Dom Association of Religious Organizations D (hereinafter “Dm Union”) affiliated with the Defendant’s Assembly.

(2) On July 17, 2005, the Association of Religious Organizations E (hereinafter referred to as the “Edemy”) passed a resolution at the Joint Council on July 24, 2005, to listen the Plaintiff as a delegate pastor.

Afterwards, on August 2005, the Egypt Association requested the Domptian Association to approve the request of the plaintiff, and on October 17, 2005, the Dmptian Council passed a resolution to approve it.

Accordingly, on October 2005, the plaintiff has been in office as a delegated pastor of the E church (which concurrently holds the position as a chairman of the party and a member of the church).

B. At a meeting of the 69th general meeting, the Defendant’s general meeting adopted a resolution that “the holders of foreign permanent sovereignty and citizenship belonging to the Defendant’s general meeting shall not be held in all public offices.” At a meeting of the 87th general meeting, the Defendant’s general meeting adopted a resolution that “the holders of foreign permanent sovereignty belonging to the Defendant’s general meeting and the head shall be allowed to be held in public offices, but the holders of foreign citizenship shall not be held in public offices.” 2) On June 20, 201, “F, which is an internal collector of the E church, cannot be held in public offices.” According to the contents of the resolution of the Defendant general meeting’s general meeting and the constitutional interpretation cases, etc., the foreign citizen right holder cannot hold in public offices against the chairman of the Korea General Assembly (hereinafter referred to as “general meeting trial division”) on June 20, 201, for reasons that the Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen right holder, was unable to obtain the approval of the Plaintiff’s general meeting.

On August 1, 2011, the 3rd general assembly trial division, which requested the plaintiff who is a U.S. citizen with the authority to delegate the plaintiff, and the resolution of approval of the Do Council's above Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's Do Council's 69 and 87 Council's Do Council